Fetch sub-accounts at a Vietnamese broker (DNSE, SSI, TCBS) directly from your device, giving you immediate access to account details for trading operations.
Danh sách tiểu khoản tại một CTCK (gọi thẳng từ máy user).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| broker | No | dnse |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful execution-environment constraint that the tool must be called directly from the user's machine, which is not in the annotations. It doesn't mention auth or output details, but the safety profile is already covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler. The essential resource and a key execution constraint are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only one-parameter tool, the description plus annotations cover the safety and execution context, but the broker parameter is left entirely to the schema and there is no guidance on expected output or when to use this vs sibling account-related tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'broker' parameter or its allowed values (dnse/ssi/tcbs) or default. The phrase 'tại một CTCK' weakly alludes to the broker dimension, but the description adds no real semantic value beyond the schema's enum and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Danh sách' = list) and resource ('tiểu khoản tại một CTCK' = sub-accounts at a brokerage), which distinguishes it from sibling balance/position/order tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or specify that the broker parameter selects the brokerage, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage hint is 'gọi thẳng từ máy user' (call directly from the user's machine), which gives execution context but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like get_broker_balance or get_broker_orders. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.